My pastor Lane Tipton was talking about how Enns, who I had never heard of, almost took down Westminster....he also talked about the danger of Seminaries in a broader general sense .... In the desire of many to make them appeal to potential candidates. And the danger of compromising the true mission ...... Any thoughts?

Today, the World Council of Churches holds over 300 member churches worldwide. [4] Some members in North America include: Episcopal Church in the USA; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA; Presbyterian Church; and United Methodist Church. As noted previously, the WCC has maintained its close relationship with the United Nations since its founding in 1948. The World Council of Churches website re-affirms that,

“…it [the WCC] seeks to demonstrate the ecumenical movement’s long-standing commitment to the UN and the ideals embodied in the UN Charter and to give voice to the ethical, moral and spiritual values which must undergird international relations.” [5]

“Reconceived” theology for a new international order

Reshaping – at the very least re-focusing – religious doctrine, particularly Christianity, to conform to a globalized world is a key facet in the quest for world governance. “The Social Thought of the World Council of Churches”, written by Edward Duff, describes the philosophy that drives the WCC. Duff cites a Rockefeller endowed survey, chaired by professor W. E. Hocking, as a significant contribution to WCC ideals. The “religion of the future”, according to the survey, will represent a “common world culture.”

“A Rockefeller-endowed survey, chaired by Harvard’s distinguished philosopher, Professor W. E. Hocking, concluded that Christianity is merely the highest of the High Religions, a stage in the universal quest for ‘righteousness’, a precious component of the religion of the future that will represent the ‘New Testament of every existing Faith’ and serve as the soul of a coming common world culture.” [1]

Hocking’s writings provide an important window into the thinking behind this Rockefeller survey. Hocking’s 1956 book, “The Coming World Civilization,” is one such window. In order for a world civilization to come about, Hocking states that Christianity must be reconceived to conform with “global” values and shed its “divisive” attributes. Hocking’s stance can be fairly summarized in this statement,

“Let me put it thus: our Christianity is in need of reconception through a deeper and humbler intercourse with the soul of the East…” [2]

Hocking foresaw a future world state under which all religions will “…ultimately unite,”

“…having an affirmative and universal goal in history, even though the city to be built, already present in its conspectus – universus hic mundus jam una civitas – is still in its architecture out of sight. On this conception, the religions may, and will, ultimately unite.” [3]

The age old writings and ideas of utopian philosophers are manifesting into the real world through regional governance, international bodies and organizations. With the faith of internationalism securely embedded into society, the architects of the world order hope to achieve their great dream of world governance.

“And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”

“And he saith unto me, The water which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations and tongues. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reineth over the kings of the earth.” — Revelation 17:12-18 (KJV)

Peter Enns once said concerning Adam. That undoubtedly Paul believed that Adam was a real man. However, Paul was wrong .I need to say that if I actually believed as Enns did, I would probably walk away from Christianity all together.The only reason I can see with influential people like him, claiming to be Christians, is to try to destabilize it from within.Tom

Something about that guy truly offends me and the amount of supporters he had was appalling....

This says all we need to know about the man....

Quote

Enns says he used to be orthodox in his thinking. What caused him to view God differently? A Disney movie on a plane trip!

“A fifty-two second exchange in a movie … And the next thing I know, my view of God flies away as if sucked out the window due to a loss of cabin pressure.”10Recounting watching Disney’s Bridge to Terabithia he describes an exchange between two young girls discussing the Bible. Leslie (a non-Christian) announces “I seriously do not think God goes around damning people to hell. He’s too busy running all this … ”

Enns describes how this dialogue caused him to be “ … nostril deep in a faith crisis … ”

“How was I to know that the company that gave us Mickey Mouse, Goofy, and Son of Flubber would venture deep into a religious debate? I was just minding my own business at thirty thousand feet over the Midwest and was caught off guard. Me—a professional Christian, a seminary professor paid to think right thoughts about God and to tell others about them. But after a long trip, my orthodoxy shield was resting at my side. I was unarmed, and Leslie’s words hit their mark. In a flash and without words, I thought quietly to myself, I think Leslie’s right.

The idea that the Creator of heaven and Earth, with all their beauty, wonder, and mystery, was at the same time a supersized Bible thumping preacher, obsessed with whether our thoughts were all in place and ready to condemn us to eternity to hell if they weren’t, made no sense—even though that was my operating (though unexamined) assumption as long as I could remember.”Now the idea that a seminary trained Christian Professor’s belief in God was devastated by a fictional children’s character making such a simplistic ‘objection’ is bad enough. But the fact that the view he had of God was of a ‘supersized Bible thumping preacher’ should set alarm bells ringing for believers as to whether Enns has ever known who God is.

In fact Enns reveals that he believes in a god that he wants to believe in (rather than the God revealed in Scripture):

“ … Leslie’s God was the one I, deep down, wanted to believe in.”11And ultimately he admits he’s thought this way for a long time;

“ … judging by an old journal I stumbled on from my early twenties, these themes have been my home base for over thirty years.”

You know as dangerous as Peter Enns is, mainly because he is clear he is a Liberal and is one of the leaders at Biologos. I think Tim Keller may be even more dangerous; mainly because he claims to be a conservative, who is also a spokeman for Biologos.. Tim Keller has deceived too many Christians, many of whom claim to be Calvinists. For example, I have pointed quite a few people now to some heretical views Keller holds and even provided articles to prove my point. Yet, for the most of them said things like believing in theistic evolution might not be right, but it is not heretical and all the information I gave them concerning "The Way of the Monk" which is a form of Contemplative Spirituality, is so vague that doesn't prove what Keller actually believes anything heretical. By the way; their is nothing vague about the information I gave. Tom

You are right about both of these men, as both of them have a less than watered down view of the scriptures, as they seek to have it accommodated to accepted "scientific facts". Most damaging is viewpoint that Jesus accommodated Himself to the current views of the time, so either he lied on issues such as Adam/Eve, or else was in error.

You are right about both of these men, as both of them have a less than watered down view of the scriptures, as they seek to have it accommodated to accepted "scientific facts". Most damaging is viewpoint that Jesus accommodated Himself to the current views of the time, so either he lied on issues such as Adam/Eve, or else was in error.

JesusfanI think it is important to mention that what you called "excepted scientific facts" are not true "scientific facts". They are "theories" that fit with their evolutionary presuppositions.In the past they have held to what they call scientific facts; only to be discarded when facts were uncovered that disproved their supposed facts.The problem has more to do with dishonesty, that people like Keller have bought into.Also, contrary to what some claim, there are many 6 day creation scientists, some with impressive credentials.I might also mention, that I heard that it is hard for a non-evolutionary scientist, to get funding for their research.

Also, contrary to what some claim, there are many 6 day creation scientists, some with impressive credentials.I might also mention, that I heard that it is hard for a non-evolutionary scientist, to get funding for their research.

True on both counts. There is a credible movie that was recently released that defends the biblical 6 day 24-hour creation view which we enjoyed watching. The author/narrator uses mainly a presuppositional approach and shows the impossibility of any form of evolution based upon material evidence.

PilgrimI watched that movie myself and enjoyed it as well.How the movie started was very effective as well. The shot of the creek that was a result of Mount Saint Helens; was eye opening. Not that it changed my opinion on anything.Tom